Miliotto v. Ciano

• Decision Date: 13 December 2019
• Docket Number: Index No. 610603/2019,Mot. Seq.: 001 MD
• Parties: SALVATORE MILIOTTO, Plaintiff, v. ALEXIS CIANO, Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

2019 NY Slip Op 34668(U)

SALVATORE MILIOTTO, Plaintiff,
v.
ALEXIS CIANO, Defendant.

Index No. 610603/2019, Mot. Seq.#: 001 MD

Supreme Court, Suffolk County

December 13, 2019

Unpublished Opinion

Orig. Return Date: November 1, 2019

Final Return Date: November 1, 2019

Pltf's Attorney: Gruenberg Kelly Della

Deft's Attorney: Gentile & Tambasco

Present: Hon. Paul J. Baisley, Jr., J.S.C.

PAUL J. BAISLEY, JR. JUDGE

Upon the following papers read on this motion e-filed motion for summary judgment: Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause and supporting papers by plaintiff filed October 9, 2019; Notice of Cross Motion and supporting papers.....; Answering Affidavits and supporting papers by defendant, filed October 28, 2019; Replying Affidavits and supporting papers by. plaintiff, filed October 29, 2019; Other; (and after hearing counsel in support and opposed to the motion) it is, ORDERED that the motion by plaintiff for summary judgment in his favor on the issue of defendant's negligence and for a determination as to his comparative fault is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that counsel for the parties shall appear for a preliminary conference at 10:00 a.m. on January 8, 2020 at the DCM-J Part of the Supreme Court, 1 Court Street, Riverhead, New York.

This is an action to recover damages for injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff Salvatore Miliotto as a result of a motor vehicle accident, which allegedly occurred on June 28, 2017, at the intersection of Patchogue-Holbrook Road and Main Street in Holbrook, New York. The accident allegedly occurred when a vehicle operated and owned by defendant Alexis Ciano disregarded its red traffic light and struck plaintiffs vehicle.

Plaintiff now moves for summary judgment in his favor on the issue of defendant's negligence and a determination as to his comparative negligence. Plaintiff contends that defendant violated Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1111 and 1141 by entering the intersection when her direction of travel was governed by a red light, and by making a left turn into the path of his vehicle traveling with the right-of-way. He also contends that defendant's conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident. In support of his motion, plaintiff submits, among other things, a copy of a certified police report, his affidavit, and the affidavit of nonparty Daniel Schaefer. In opposition, defendant argues that triable facts exist as to how the accident occurred, and submits her affidavit.

1

In his affidavit, plaintiff avers that prior to the collision, his vehicle was traveling southbound on Patchogue-Holbrook Road, and that his direction of travel was governed by a green light. His vehicle allegedly was proceeding through the subject intersection when it was struck by defendant's eastbound vehicle, which was attempting to make a left turn onto northbound Patchouge-Holbrook Road. Plaintiff contends that defendant's direction of travel was governed by a red light at the subject intersection.

Daniel Schaeffer contends that prior to the accident, his southbound vehicle was traveling behind plaintiffs vehicle, and that plaintiffs direction of travel was governed by a green light at the subject intersection. He avers that prior to the accident, defendant proceeded into the subject intersection against a red light controlling her direction of travel, and attempted to make a left turn onto northbound Patchogue-Holbrook Road.

According to defendant's affidavit, her direction of travel was governed by a green light prior to the accident. Defendant allegedly looked to her left and observed that there was no oncoming traffic before attempting to make the left turn. Defendant avers that plaintiffs vehicle proceeded into the intersection despite having a red light controlling his direction of travel.

The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by tendering evidence in admissible form sufficient to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Or., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 87 N.Y.S.2d 316 [1985]). The movant has the initial burden of proving entitlement to summary judgment (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., supra). Once the movant demonstrates a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action (see Vega v Restani Constr. Corp., 18 N.Y.3d 499, 942 N.Y.S.2d 13 [2012]; Alvarez v Prospect...